Scan barcode
sarahetc's review against another edition
2.0
To say that M.E. Thomas is an unreliable narrator is an understatement. And that this didn't occur to me before I started the book, or even well into it, is probably the best proof there is that I am not a sociopath like she is. And she is very, very invested in getting everyone to see the sociopath in themselves.
Thomas has set out to write a memoir about her experience as a diagnosed sociopath in a world of empaths. She makes other goals plain as well: to point out the sociopathy in everyone, regardless of their actual brain chemistry or construction; to begin normalizing sociopathic behavior in order to make the world a more welcoming place for sociopaths; to prove that sociopathic behavior isn't malicious, despite the fact that it's deliberate. She succeeds and fails in equal measure.
What comes across most clearly is Thomas's megalomania, which she informs the reader of immediately. What she doesn't seem to be aware of, however, is her solipsism. She understands, accepts and relishes in the fact that her ego is out of control, especially given the constraints of reality. What she doesn't get is that her "condition" may render it difficult to understand the emotional lives of others, but it's her own choice to cease trying to and even flagrantly ignore them. In fact, I spent the majority of the book wondering whether or not it had ever occurred to her to just not be so cruel all the time.
Thomas spends the vast majority of the book using the technicalities of her upbringing and faith (LDS) to excuse and justify actions and behavior that range from simply impolite to actively felonious. By the end, she uses the terms "depraved" and "depravity" over and over again, as a contrast. She states that sociopaths may be cruel, unfeeling, uncaring or any other anti-social word you might wish to use, but that they are certainly not depraved. This is the ultimate emblem of her complex and convoluted self-delusion-- the pleasure she takes in the premeditated harm of others and its explanation as "not actually harmful or wrong" is the very definition of depraved.
I think I have learned something about sociopathy having read this book, but I'm certain it's not what Thomas wanted me to learn.
Thomas has set out to write a memoir about her experience as a diagnosed sociopath in a world of empaths. She makes other goals plain as well: to point out the sociopathy in everyone, regardless of their actual brain chemistry or construction; to begin normalizing sociopathic behavior in order to make the world a more welcoming place for sociopaths; to prove that sociopathic behavior isn't malicious, despite the fact that it's deliberate. She succeeds and fails in equal measure.
What comes across most clearly is Thomas's megalomania, which she informs the reader of immediately. What she doesn't seem to be aware of, however, is her solipsism. She understands, accepts and relishes in the fact that her ego is out of control, especially given the constraints of reality. What she doesn't get is that her "condition" may render it difficult to understand the emotional lives of others, but it's her own choice to cease trying to and even flagrantly ignore them. In fact, I spent the majority of the book wondering whether or not it had ever occurred to her to just not be so cruel all the time.
Thomas spends the vast majority of the book using the technicalities of her upbringing and faith (LDS) to excuse and justify actions and behavior that range from simply impolite to actively felonious. By the end, she uses the terms "depraved" and "depravity" over and over again, as a contrast. She states that sociopaths may be cruel, unfeeling, uncaring or any other anti-social word you might wish to use, but that they are certainly not depraved. This is the ultimate emblem of her complex and convoluted self-delusion-- the pleasure she takes in the premeditated harm of others and its explanation as "not actually harmful or wrong" is the very definition of depraved.
I think I have learned something about sociopathy having read this book, but I'm certain it's not what Thomas wanted me to learn.
kimberlinay's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
joy_davis's review against another edition
4.5
Fascinating look at neurodivergence. Gave me a totally different view of sociopathy after reading Jon Ronson's "Psychopath Test" years ago. It still seems possible to me that the whole book is really just sociopathic lying/manipulation and not a sincere memoir as an "empath" would expect/believe, but interesting nonetheless.
Listening on audio helped because I sped it up for the repetitive bits. I don't understand why anyone would expect to "like" the 'narrator', though? I think those who didn't finish it may have missed out on some good points at the end about the interaction of nurture with nature, and how studies seem to show that antisocial behaviors are highly malleable based on childhood support & experiences.
Listening on audio helped because I sped it up for the repetitive bits. I don't understand why anyone would expect to "like" the 'narrator', though? I think those who didn't finish it may have missed out on some good points at the end about the interaction of nurture with nature, and how studies seem to show that antisocial behaviors are highly malleable based on childhood support & experiences.
sarahcollie's review against another edition
This book was annoying and boring and the author had such an inflated sense of self because she was a sociopath.
sallyfoster's review against another edition
2.0
I’ve had this book in my ‘to read’ pile for a while and went in to it with relatively high expectations. Sadly I found it to be underwhelming. The book as a whole dragged and after a while felt quite repetitive and self indulgent in its recounts of seducing and ‘ruining’ people, and I generally found the author / narrator to be quite unlikeable (which I suppose isn’t wholly unintentional, but still marred my reading experience). Having said that, I did learn a fair amount about sociopaths and found it interesting to read the sociopathic perspective from someone that has been diagnosed as such.
hannahbellz's review against another edition
2.0
This book was okay. The author is a diagnosed sociopath and writes about the science and history of sociopathy, while providing descriptions of her own thought processes and stories from her life. Parts of it were interesting, but it’s not well-organized, and after a while it gets repetitive and tedious.
The author is also a huge narcissist and not particularly likable, and while that’s to be expected, it does get tiresome and disconcerting reading her monotonous narcissistic ramblings and descriptions of her sociopathic behavior. Between descriptions of abhorrent behavior and quotes like “Ruining people is delicious,” and “If a gang of teenagers appeared that night to kick in his organs and slash his throat, I would have stood by to watch the enthralling violence of it,” the author laments people's unfair bias against sociopaths, who are not necessarily bad people but natural human variants who can learn pro-social behaviors. It seemed a bit contradictory.
Even so, it was hard not to feel some compassion for the author as she conveyed her struggles with learning to fit into society. It’s not like she can help the way her brain works; as she points out, there is a genetic component to sociopathy, and the way she was raised may have contributed to activating the gene as well. She writes extensively about her difficulty fitting in and relating to people.
“At some point, I have to wonder if all of my rational decision-making can make up for my inability to empathize, and I conclude that it doesn’t. People take for granted the empathy with which they were born, and the morality that they somehow internalize. Crying when someone you love cries-I was not born with this shortcut into the hearts of other people. Feeling guilt when you hurt someone you love is an internal safeguard to prevent you from losing them, but I have never been able to learn it. The work-arounds that I have devised for these things often fail me.”
She describes always feeling like she is acting, but as she points out, what is really the difference between constantly acting a certain way and actually being that way?
“But for the sake of getting by-holding a job, having a life-I present a mask of normalcy to the world. It can be lonely. I become restless from pretending to be normal for too long and too hard. But going through the motions of being normal and stable does make them true, to some degree. What’s the difference between acting the part of a good lawyer and being one? What’s the difference between pretending to be a valuable colleague and being one? I’ve come to realize that the scam I was playing as a new lawyer has acquired the weight of reality-it is my life.”
Another main point is that empathy exists on a spectrum, and sociopaths shouldn’t be loathed just for being sociopaths when they can learn to display somewhat appropriate behaviors, and anyways, there are tons of horrible people who aren’t sociopaths.
Of all the research presented in this book, one tidbit I thought was particularly interesting was that a study by Yaling Yang of the University of Southern California found that habitual liars have on average 22 to 26 percent more white matter in their prefrontal cortex, supposedly making it easier for them to jump from one idea to another, and make "connections between things that nonliars would not make, for instance, 'me' and 'fighter pilot,'" though it is uncertain whether these connections facilitate lying in otherwise honest people, or whether repeated lying creates these extra connections.
While somewhat discombobulated and disturbing, this book was intriguing at times and I'm glad I read it, though much better books probably exist on the subject.
The author is also a huge narcissist and not particularly likable, and while that’s to be expected, it does get tiresome and disconcerting reading her monotonous narcissistic ramblings and descriptions of her sociopathic behavior. Between descriptions of abhorrent behavior and quotes like “Ruining people is delicious,” and “If a gang of teenagers appeared that night to kick in his organs and slash his throat, I would have stood by to watch the enthralling violence of it,” the author laments people's unfair bias against sociopaths, who are not necessarily bad people but natural human variants who can learn pro-social behaviors. It seemed a bit contradictory.
Even so, it was hard not to feel some compassion for the author as she conveyed her struggles with learning to fit into society. It’s not like she can help the way her brain works; as she points out, there is a genetic component to sociopathy, and the way she was raised may have contributed to activating the gene as well. She writes extensively about her difficulty fitting in and relating to people.
“At some point, I have to wonder if all of my rational decision-making can make up for my inability to empathize, and I conclude that it doesn’t. People take for granted the empathy with which they were born, and the morality that they somehow internalize. Crying when someone you love cries-I was not born with this shortcut into the hearts of other people. Feeling guilt when you hurt someone you love is an internal safeguard to prevent you from losing them, but I have never been able to learn it. The work-arounds that I have devised for these things often fail me.”
She describes always feeling like she is acting, but as she points out, what is really the difference between constantly acting a certain way and actually being that way?
“But for the sake of getting by-holding a job, having a life-I present a mask of normalcy to the world. It can be lonely. I become restless from pretending to be normal for too long and too hard. But going through the motions of being normal and stable does make them true, to some degree. What’s the difference between acting the part of a good lawyer and being one? What’s the difference between pretending to be a valuable colleague and being one? I’ve come to realize that the scam I was playing as a new lawyer has acquired the weight of reality-it is my life.”
Another main point is that empathy exists on a spectrum, and sociopaths shouldn’t be loathed just for being sociopaths when they can learn to display somewhat appropriate behaviors, and anyways, there are tons of horrible people who aren’t sociopaths.
Of all the research presented in this book, one tidbit I thought was particularly interesting was that a study by Yaling Yang of the University of Southern California found that habitual liars have on average 22 to 26 percent more white matter in their prefrontal cortex, supposedly making it easier for them to jump from one idea to another, and make "connections between things that nonliars would not make, for instance, 'me' and 'fighter pilot,'" though it is uncertain whether these connections facilitate lying in otherwise honest people, or whether repeated lying creates these extra connections.
While somewhat discombobulated and disturbing, this book was intriguing at times and I'm glad I read it, though much better books probably exist on the subject.
filemanager's review against another edition
DNF @ 78% - The first 60% or so was interesting, but I lost interest after that. Might revisit it later.
hcoulstock's review against another edition
2.0
the content itself was rather interesting (albeit repetitive at points) but i just didn't really get along with the author herself? which i know was kind of the point but it was hard to enjoy it when i was regularly disagreeing with stuff she was saying.